From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Groves v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 5, 1996
668 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Summary

affirming denial of rule 3.850 motion, "as said motion [was] facially insufficient," in that it did not comply "with the contents requirements set forth in subsection (c) of the rule"

Summary of this case from Burchfield v. State

Opinion

No. 95-1699.

March 5, 1996.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County; Kim A. Skievaski, Judge.

Julius T. Groves, Pro Se, Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant's motion, which was treated as a motion for post-conviction relief. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850. We need not reach the merits of the appellant's motion, as said motion is facially insufficient. We affirm, without prejudice to the appellant's right to file below a revised motion that sufficiently complies with the contents requirements set forth in subsection (c) of the rule. Deese v. State, 530 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA) (failure to comply with Rule 3.850 requirements rendered motion facially insufficient), rev. dism., 534 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1988); Burns v. State, 651 So.2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (although trial court's stated reason for denial of Rule 3.850 was erroneous, summary denial was affirmed, without prejudice for the appellant to file an amended motion below complying with the contents requirements of the rule); Mitchell v. State, 638 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Scott v. State, 364 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

In the event the lower tribunal elects to deny any revised motion including substantially similar allegations of "affirmative misrepresentations" by trial counsel, the trial court should attach portions of the record that conclusively show that the appellant is entitled to no relief. Hayes v. State, 665 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Griffin v. State, 644 So.2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Jones v. State, 636 So.2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Carmichael v. State, 631 So.2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Corbitt v. State, 584 So.2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Groves v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 5, 1996
668 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

affirming denial of rule 3.850 motion, "as said motion [was] facially insufficient," in that it did not comply "with the contents requirements set forth in subsection (c) of the rule"

Summary of this case from Burchfield v. State
Case details for

Groves v. State

Case Details

Full title:JULIUS T. GROVES, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Mar 5, 1996

Citations

668 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

His motion did not comply with subsection (c) of the rule because it was not sworn and failed to indicate…

Toler v. State

AFFIRMED. The trial court's summary dismissal of the appellant's motion for postconviction relief filed…